random blog wrote:I’m not going to attack anarcho-capitalism because it was invented by bourgeois economists and business owners (even though it was), because there’s really no need to do so. It can be discredited on merit alone.

I wonder who is behind anarcho capitalism besides scientology and big business owners

The last 17 minutes are pretty interesting especially when he starts talking about Universalism (2:22:46 - 2:24:15)

Universal values:
The ideas of liberalism are not exclusively tied to democracy with reference to the democracy understanding of ancient Greece. Slaves existed and women were not allowed to vote which is contrary to the ideas of western democracy today.

Slavery can not be a universal value because it consists of at least two people where one man is ruler and the other is slave. Universal value must, however, involve all people and cause the same condition for all.

Morality can not play a role in the formation of these universal values because morality is learned and has different meanings for each people.

What do you guys think, sounds bogus right or is there more to it than meets the eye?

Of course slavery is not a universal value because the concept only exists in minds capable of formulating sentient, coherent thoughts at a high enough level to understand what that is. And an existing moral code that tells them slavery is wrong. Of course the slave (actually this depends, but assuming so) always feels slavery is wrong just as the pig that's for dinner always feels eating meat is wrong.

Relationships in animals that may mimic slavery are nonetheless not "slavery" as we understand it. Universalism by definition can't exist because it relies on humans who have enough free time to fart about with brainwankery. It's like a chicken and egg situation. If you have enough time to sit around and think about bullshit to wank yourself off, you probably have an advanced enough society in terms of basic survival to be able to waste time on frivolity. Starving kids in Africa don't think about muh universalism. Universalism is patently false on its face.

Even if we accept the premise for the sake of a thought experiment, and allow that we are only limiting "universalism" to human brains and accepting that it is "subjective" in the sense of physical reality, but "universal" in a sense of human morality, that would also be patently false as well. EVEN STEFAN IN THIS VIDEO says that he has not seen it "translate into reality." No shit you haven't. That's like saying you've never seen true communism, you hackfraud.

Likewise "universally preferable behavior" doesn't exist, at least not in the sense I think he means it. A universally preferable behavior, in my opinion, would be to be vicious when it's advantageous to be vicious and altruistic when it's beneficial to be altruistic. And this is how societies generally succeed btw. But I think Stef means some kind of code of morality which again, doesn't exist. It's good to be altruistic when you're in a group of other altruistic minds who work cooperatively for benefit. It's bad to be altruistic when there's a resource shortage between your tribe and another tribe and only one tribe can survive based on the amount of resources.

"Have the absorbed empires taken on the values of the west to their benefit, not really." Lmao. A lot of countries have done very well and some have done very poorly. Stef loves sweeping generalizations. He's also conflating "reason and evidence" with some kind of universal moral imperative. Not sure what the fuck he's talking about there.

Now if you mean some kind of general code of conduct wired via evolution into humans regarding the treatment of other humans in a kin group, we could say that probably does exist.

aka "when there is no resource shortage, it is good to be helpful to the kin group to ensure the continuation of the genetic line, and better still to be protective towards the young and the females capable of reproduction."

You can't have a society without morality, since a crapload of social rules and taboos will be subjective.

The society, by and large, determines what those are. Laws arise from that. The goal of a society is survival through mutual assistance. Everyone has their idea of what morality should be, and the people with power get together and talk about it, and laws happen so that the society can be ordered along rules of morality and codes of conduct most will agree to. Religion is just another form of this. Very early societies had little distinction between kings and priests.

I'm not saying there's no intrinsic evolutionary drive to avoid murdering children. Quite the contrary. To further the species, it is beneficial to wire in programming that encourages the adults to protect the young.

I guess it depends what you mean by objective or subjective, because what a lot of religious people and philosophical wankers mean is "factually true for all time in all situations at all places" and then the religious people add to that "because these morals were given by god." If you just mean within our own species, there are some drives clearly wired in which are near-universal. But they can be and are supplanted in times of great crisis, so they're not set in stone. Even a rule like not eating other people or not raping women gets violated when resource scarcity occurs. Most of our "set in stone" morality goes away at such times. That's not to say it never existed in any form.

And a crapload of social rules and taboos are subjective to some extent, which is why we continue to have political fights about social issues (among other things) and always will. Many people will say "there is universal morality" but then the same people will argue their version of "universal morality" includes an awful lot of shit that seems subjective as fuck, like "don't curse" or "don't drink beer." They'll tell you god really really cares about whether you fuck a chick with a condom (haram) or without one (halal.)

You can't have a society without morality, since a crapload of social rules and taboos will be subjective.

Morality itself is subjective.

In my book Universalism doesn't necessarily mean that you abandon all morality. It just can't clash with the universal values. You can't unite people if they all work within their own moral codes and in the past we have seen that you can't put your own morals over other people in hopes they adopt it. What that rabi guy said in his last post is why morality can not play a role in forming those values. Universal values have to stand above morality.